Reading between the lines, I suspect this is just one more attempt by Rowe to extract more taxpayer money to increase the value and profitability of his company's 17 existing nuclear power plants while at the same time discouraging the construction of new nuclear plants that might compete with his currently operating plants. Like other commodities electricity in deregulated markets like the ones that Exelon supplies has a price that is affected by the balance between supply and demand. With more supply, prices fall. That benefits consumers and hurts existing producers. If Rowe was really interest in adding signifcant zero emission capacity, he would be directing his people to investigate the restart of the two idle units at the Zion site.

12:45 pm November 18, 2009

Joel Upchurch wrote :

It currently takes longer to get an operating license for a nuclear plant than it does to build it. If we want to reduce the cost and financial risks of building a nuclear power plants, we need to streamline the licensing procedures. Since modern reactors are built to standardized designs, a lot of the regulations make as much sense as proof reading the copies of a document. When reactors are build at facilities that already have reactors, then the license should be proforma.

1:32 pm November 18, 2009

Wally wrote :

Of course John Rowe wants to increase the value and profitability of Exelon. That is the job he was hired to do. However he also has to look ahead and realize that either he has to do some building / rebuilding or else he can forget about having a company as the plants he has retire out. Oyster should never have been relicensed and will probably not make it the full 20 years. Others in his fleet are not that far behind.

3:32 pm November 18, 2009

seth wrote :

If it weren't for Senators Graham and Alexander standing firm for nuclear power in the climate bill against Obama's team of "renewable" zeolots buoyed up by massive monetary support from Big Coal/Oil, we wouldn't be seeing any nukes in the US.

Big Oil's fear - A $2.5 trillion investment in American nuclear power, paid by ending $1 trillion in annual US fossil fuels expenditures with average paybacsk of less than three years using a tiny fraction of US industrial capacity and American GHG emissions end and Big Oil goes broke.

India is planning a build of 470 gigawatts of nukes and looks like it is ordering 6 AP-1000's.

China has under construction and final engineering 10 American designed AP-1000 reactors and a hundred more planned. The Chinese nukes are coming in so far for at $1.7 billion a gigawatt and are expected to hit less than a $1 billion. Construction time 42 months.

While the Chinese are spending 10 million man hours on engineers, technicians and labor in building their AP1000 nukes, the US AP-1000 team is spending the same plus 10 years worth of ten times as costly bureaucrats, lawyers and bankers. America's political system is hopelessly grid locked and corrupted by Big Oil and our corrupt and litigious legal system, and our energy structure like our medical system is run almost 100% by grossly inefficient private companies quadrupling our costs and doubling our project timeframes.

Our Nuclear Rejection Commission just dumped the AP1000 design because they weren't sure that the concrete containment dome could hold the emergency cooling water!!! - a calculated insult to America's engineers by a bunch of lawyers. This is standard civil engineering practice not different than a roof top swimming pool or a bridge design. The same reactor the Chinese are building as we speak.

The US had a perfectly functioning 60 Mw fast metal Gen IV 100% efficient nuclear waste burning reactor, running for 30 years out in Idaho. Plans were in place for a $1 billion a gigawatt commercial installation. In one of the stupidest moves US politicians have ever made Kerry and Clinton shut it down under pressure from Greenpeace and Big Oil campaign donations.

With any luck Canada with its super efficient giant public power companies and a real working public medical system is standing by with Mexico ready to rim the border with a massive employment boosting (to them) 2500 mass produced Candu ACR-1000 reactors and will save our "renewable" butts making $trillions selling the US power at premium rates.

Nuclear power as the only possible answer to our less than ten years away civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis. Obama's "renewable" religious zealots seem determined to drive us over that climate precipice.

5:25 pm November 18, 2009

Kit P wrote :

If Rod Adams was interested in promoting nuclear power he would stop advocating restarting a run down piece of junk like Zion nuclear station.

Many US utilities do a good job of maintaining the material condition of assets both nuclear and other wise. A few were penny wise and pound foolish. Those that took care of their nuke assets are rewarded with cash machines.

3:02 am November 19, 2009

Anonymous wrote :

Will somebody please send copies of these articles to Lamar Alexander:

Green nuclear power is the only practical long-term solution to (1) ameliorate global warming, (2) avoid dependence on foreign oil/gas, and (3) overcome oil/gas depletion after 2040. Only two prime energy sources, coal and uranium, can affordably deliver terawatts of "mother" electricity for: (A) heavy industry, i.e. manufacture of autos, ships, airplanes, etc; (B) power for vast fleets of future electric plug-in autos; and (C) production of portable synfuels (hydrogen and ammonia) and biofuels for long-haul propulsion of land-, sea-, and air-craft when oil is gone. However coal worsens global warming and must be preserved as raw material to make organics and plastics when oil is gone. This leaves uranium as the only "big-mama" green energy source, an "inconvenient truth".

Green solar and wind energy are useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. But at terawatt levels, immense areas of land and/or sea would be needed, necessitating enormous maintenance operations, spoiling scenic land- or sea-scapes, and destroying local ecosystems. As scientifically documented in "The Nuclear Imperative" (ISBN 1-4020-4930-7), after 2050 only uranium and thorium can affordably sustain global energy needs for at least 3000 years, using proven fuel reprocessing and advanced reactor technology. For the USA, 500 additional nuclear reactors are required, built on 9000 acres (@ $1.5 trillion), compared to 1,500,000 windmills with storage batteries on 6,000,000 windy acres (@ $4.5 trillion) and the destruction of natural wildlife habitats. Ten times these numbers are needed world-wide. (Costs in 2005 dollars; for later years multiply by the inflation factor).

Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of tera-watts of electricity is three times less expensive with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage systems (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of access roads for maintenance and repair are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, dead birds, sand erosion, and storm damage, and to periodically replace electrodes on storage batteries. Should a country limit itself to solar and wind energy, it is guaranteed to become impoverished and dependent on synfuels imported from other countries (future OPECs --> OSECs), who have nuclear power when oil fields are depleted.

Today's nuclear power plants are absolutely safe. Because of the negative "coefficient of reactivity", reactor fuel elements can only melt (an explosion is not possible) during a maximum credible accident in which the emergency core cooling system totally fails. This was "experimentally" proven in the Three-Mile-Island (TMI) accident. A negative coefficient of reactivity means that neutron multiplication is automatically stopped when the temperature in the reactor gets too high. The Russian Chernobyl reactor which took the lives of 57 people, had a positive coefficient of reactivity because it used graphite as moderator. That design for nuclear power plants was prohibited in the USA since the birth of nuclear power in 1950 and now prohibited worldwide. Furthermore the Chernobyl reactor had no containment vessel, as was/is the law in all Western countries and now globally. The assertion that perhaps thousands of people could still die from the fallout around Chernobyl is nonsense. Of the 60,000 inhabitants of Pripyat who had been exposed to fallout, about 12,000 will die at an advanced age of cancer because worldwide 20% of all people ultimately die from cancer. To ascribe those 12,000 deaths to Chernobyl's fallout is equally ridiculous as claiming that such a death toll is due to drinking coffee because 20% of all people drink coffee.

A stale anti-nuclear lament is "what about all the long-lived radioactive nuclear waste". The volume of waste amounts to one aspirin tablet per year per person using nuclear electricity, compared to many tons of air pollutants and mega-tons of globe-warming gaseous CO2 emitted by coal or fossil-fuel combustion. Nuclear waste can be easily stored and safely transported, as the US nuclear navy has done for half a century. Contrary to allegations that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel elements pose a problem because of million-year half-lives, they will be separated from fission products by reprocessing and burnt as fuel in future fast-breeder reactors; they will not be dumped. This reduces 400 tons from a one-year accumulation of spent fuel per reactor to 2 tons of fission products, taking centuries instead of decades to fill Nevada's Yucca or other waste repository. The notion that long radioactive lifetimes are undesirable is also erroneous. The longer the decay lifetime, the less the radiation emitted per gram of radio-isotope. All humans are "hot" because everyone has radioactive potassium-40 (K-40; 0.012% abundance) in the cells of his/her body, which continuously emits beta particles with a half-life of one million years! Man successfully evolved in this environment.

Energy is man's third most important need after water and food. Those who hinder expansion of nuclear power will be viewed as irresponsible neo-luddites. They may not realize it, but they are promoting the eventual collapse of modern Western civilization, which is precisely the goal of the Al-Qaida terrorists. Any further delay of a committed worldwide expansion of nuclear energy (not weapons!) will assuredly cause impoverishment and death of many inhabitants of our planet by 2050. Those responsible for such delays will be held accountable by future generations.

What a great read. We truly need people like you who know the issues of energy to be in the forefront of our upcoming fight to help save our planet along with our own quality of living. May I suggest that you would be better off if you where in the opinion page rather than that of the comment section of an article.

For the sake of our future can I persuade you to focus your efforts on getting yourself published in the opinion section where your knowledge and facts of nuclear power will gain more exposure. I know it is hard to write at such a high level and still have newspapers of today that mostly write at eighth graders level produce your work. I would suggest breaking down your topics that you used today. In other words one article on the cost of nuclear power vs. sun and solar and another on the inherent safety that comes from a negative coefficient of reactivity that is employed throughout our current nuclear fleet. I hope to read to see your work in the future. I wish you the best of luck.

Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,

Jfarmer9

5:20 pm November 19, 2009

Roger Sowell wrote :

Dr. Eerkens, you write eloquently, but fail to give the engineers their due. Why do you (and others) have such faith in the ability of engineers to solve nuclear power's pressing problems of high initial cost, recycling of spent radioactive wastes, and safe operations with decommissioning, but so little faith in engineers' ability to provide reliable, tera-watt scale clean and renewable energy from solar, wind, ocean current, and waves?

Your assertion that only nuclear can provide for the future is absolutely wrong. Nuclear should only be used for military vessels, not for civilian electric power production. To build any nuclear power plants is to impose a horrible burden on future generations - and they will not thank us for that. They will be responsible for cleaning up the mess we leave them.

In the near future, one cannot imagine a terrorist crashing an airplane into a wind farm - yet crashing a large airliner into the spent fuel storage area of an existing nuclear power plant would create immense harm and civilian casualties due to radioactivity.

We know how to provide safe, reliable, low-cost power without building nuclear power plants - and we must do so.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq., B.S. Chemical Engineering

1:22 am November 20, 2009

Jim Hopf wrote :

Flying an airplane into a spent fuel storage facility, or a nuclear power plant, has a negligible chance of causing any significant harm to the public, whereas crashing one into an oil refinery, LNG terminal or many of the other types of facilities employed by the oil & gas industry (who Mr. Sowell often represents, as a lawyer), is much more likely to cause a large number of public deaths and property damage.

It is also true that the toxins and wastes created by the fossil fuel industry (including the oil & gas) will represent a much greater public health and environmental hazard, over all time frames (from short term to ultra long term) than nuclear waste ever will. Western commercial nuclear power hasn't created any "messes". It's just about the only major industry that hasn't. It's also the only industry that is required to prove that it will completely contain all of its toxins/wastes for as long as they remain hazardous. This is a standard that no other industry (certainly not the oil & gas industry) could ever come close to meeting. Even solar cells may represent a greater long term waste problem.

The truth is that nuclear waste can easily be stored (with no chance of leakage) for the hundred years or so (at most) it will take to develop the technology to process and eliminate it. But even if that never happens, the very long term risks from a nuclear waste repository are negligible compared to those associated with most of our other waste streams. We basically know, right now, that nuclear waste will never have any public health or environmental impact.

Nuclear waste will not be any significant burden for future generations. Heck, we've even set the money aside to pay for dealing with the waste (something no other industry really does). Future generations WILL curse us for trashing the planet's environment and climate, and for burning through Earth's entire (and irreplaceable) hydrocarbon (oil/gas) endowment in less than two short centuries. That along with the buried wastes/toxins from the fossil, and other, industries, which represent a far greater long term hazard.

As to whether it's easier for engineers to solve renewables' problems or nuclear's "pressing" problems, my response is, "what problems". The practical and economic problems of (ever) generating a large fraction of our power with renewables, due to intermittentcy, etc.. are real and daunting engineering problems. Most of nuclear's "problems" we've been hearing so much about shouldn't even be characterized as "small". They're phony.

Over 40+ years, Western plants have never had an accident that has killed a member of the public and they have never had any measurable public health impact. Reactor accident risks are negligible, and "reactor safety" is a phony problem. Nobody has ever been sickened or killed by nuclear waste (unlike the 25,000 people killed every year from fossil fuels' wastes/toxins). The long term risks are negligible compared to most other waste streams. Once again, phony problem. The existence of commericial nuclear power in the US, as well as any decision to increase the number of US plants, has absolutely no impact on nuclear weapons proliferation. Phony problem. It's also true that adding plants in any country that already has reactors (or the bomb) has no impact on proliferation. The only nuclear "problem" that may be somewhat real is economics, but even right now it's cheaper than renewables.

For several decades, nuclear power has been providing steady, reliable, domestic, pollution free power at a reasonable cost. It has done so without ever killing a member of the public or having any measurable impact on public health. It does not contribute to global warming, and it has a virtually limitless fuel supply. Any "problems" with nuclear you've heard about are at best overblown (more like non-existent).

1:42 pm November 23, 2009

greenocracy wrote :

We need to employ nuclear power in our energy arsenal that is a given. Now if we could get the environmental movement over their antiquated fears.......http://envirogy.wordpress.com

9:35 am December 13, 2009

Marga wrote :

We are not "at war" against climate change. If anything, the "war" on the environment is what got us into this mess in the first place. Change the mindset, and I'd venture to say that nuclear would not be part of the mix. Nuclear is not safe--or does no one else read the World Nuclear News or any other publication beyond the WSJ? And burying the waste in the ground is not a solution--neither is reprocessing it the one time it can be and creating a more toxic sludge than the original waste was in the process. Even the DOE's study show that coal and combined cycle natural gas plants are a cheaper source of energy than nuclear. Coal is out, but gas is still there AND gas plants have the advantage of being responsive to energy needs. Nuclear plants cannot be ramped up or down quickly. A far better investment would be improving transmission. The nation's transmission lines are old and inefficient to the job of all power sources. If we could upgrade to a Smart Grid, the need for constant power sources like nuclear would diminish if not go away entirely.

4:55 am January 11, 2010

Usdating wrote :

Very very usefull info. I think this is a 'TOP1 Article into Build Link Popularity. Keep going!

Meals and Miles
One Girl's Journey Through Food and Running
Home
About
Pictures
FAQ
Press
Contact
The History of Meals and Miles
Favorite Posts
Race Recaps
Travels
On The Job
Move & Mix
Ben & Ashley’s Wedding
Recipes
Wedding Posts
Blog Roll
My Orlando
Orlando Restaurants
Orlando Fun
Theme Parks
Keeping Fit in Orlando
The Show
Pilot: Rebounderz Trampoline Fitness Class
Episode 1: Dance Trance
Episode 2: Vixen Fitness Pole Dancing Class
Episode 3: Orlando Watersports Complex
Episode 4: Orlando Paddleboard Yoga
Episode 5: Aiguille Rock Climbing Center
Episode 6: Cage Fitness
NROLFW
Wedding
Subscribe
Belly Buttons
by Meghann on June 14, 2011
Sit down. I’m afraid I have some bad news for you.
Are you ready for it?
Here it goes….
I don’t have photos of my lunch.
I know, I know – I’m a terrible blogger. I grabbed the wrong SD card on my way out the door and didn’t even think about it until I plugged an empty SD card in my laptop at Starbucks.
I’m simply mortified…
Feel free to unsubscribe…
I will understand…
Kidding!
Well, not kidding about not having the photos – those are still stuck in my DSLR at home – but I am kidding about being so melodramatic. Lunch was pretty normal anyways – just an apple, some carrots, green beans, and peanut butter. No biggie.
What I really want to talk to you about is piercings anyways.
Yes, piercings.
How many piercings do you have? I think at one point I had 5 different sets of holes in my body.
More specifically – Belly Button Piercings
You see, last Saturday my belly button ring fell to the bottom of Lucky’s Lake – never to be seen again.
RIP Belly Button Ring!
I’ve had my belly button pierced since the day I turned 18 (I literally got it the day I turned 18 because I wasn’t allowed to do it a minute before), but for the last 4 or 5 years I haven’t really given much thought to it. In that time I’ve had the same boring ring in and rarely had a chance to show my belly button(not that I was looking for opportunities!).
As of right now I’m torn between buying a replacement ring and just keeping it as is. I’d be hard pressed to think of any friends that still have theirs pierced, but I feel like ditching it forever is leaving another piece of my youth behind. I already had to lost the nose piercing when I entered the real world (and I still miss it).
So, the question is… I’m 26 – is that too old to have my belly button pierced still?
What do you think?
165 comments… read them below or add one
1
Becky
June 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I’m 27 and mine is still pierced too. I work in a conservative field (finance) and wear a suit to work, and so I mostly forget about it during the day, but it’s a fun reminder that 27 really isn’t that old.
Reply
2
JunieB
June 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Well seeing as how I was almost mid 30′s when I got mine, its all relative to the individual.
Mine fell out when we were building a fence at new house and I was carrying lumber (across my stomach) :O)
Anyway, I waited too long to have a replacement put in and the dude said “i will have to stick you again” to which I promptly said “no thanks!”
JunieB recently posted..Hey SJP!!! This day is rude- wouldnt you say
Reply
3
Liv @ The Salty n' Sweet
June 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Well since most people don’t usually see it, unless you’re at the beach, I don’t think you HAVE to leave that part of your youth behind! If it’s still important to you, then get a new one. But if you’re just hanging on to it as a reminder of the young Meghann, then maybe it’s not totally necessary. Do what makes you happy
Liv @ The Salty n’ Sweet recently posted..A Smoothie Under the Sun
Reply
4
emily
June 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I’m about to turn 26 and I still have my belly button pierced; I don’t plan on taking it out until I’m pregnant! Actually, to be honest I’ve never taken it out because I’m too scared, so the ring I have in is the one that I was pierce with when I was 15!
I also have 5 ear piercings (2 and 3) and 2 tiny tattoos
Reply
5
emily
June 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
*pierced with, geez
emily recently posted..Sweet and Sour
Reply
6
Rachel
June 14, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I’m 30 and still have mine! My friend and I had it done (illegally!) when we were 17. It’s hard to let that go.
Reply
7
Lee
June 14, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I had my nose pierced for four years. I took it out like 2 years ago and still sometimes miss it. I mean, if you like the bb ring, sure, buy another one. I wouldn’t go out and get it repierced if it closed though.
Lee recently posted..A Relaxing Night
Reply
8
Katherina @ Zephyr Runs
June 14, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Nah. Keep it, it’s cute. I still have my nose ring though so I might not be the authority on this, hah.
Katherina @ Zephyr Runs recently posted..Playing Hooky
Reply
9
Courtney Smith
June 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I have 7 piercings, 6 in my ears and my bellybutton. I recently took out one of my earrings and have been debating taking out my bellybutton ring but I think my stomach looks so funky without it. I’ve had mine since I was 16 and I guess I’m just not used to seeing it without a ring. On the bright side, it’s a piercing you’ll never have to worry about removing (because no one will know you have it) if you decide to enter corporate world again…
Courtney Smith recently posted..What exactly is a diet
Reply
10
Emily
June 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
No 26 is not too old!
Mine fell out about a year ago when I was at a boot camp class. I just kinda decided I didn’t want the metal in me any more… and I was too cheap to go buy one I also just noticed my scar is getting better!
Emily recently posted..100 Responsible
Reply
11
melissa (fitnessnyc)
June 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I did the same thing, I rain to a tattoo parlour and diamond dave pierced by stomach the day I turned 18. I’ve been debating getting rid of it also. I feel a bit old at 28, on the other hand, my sister-in-law got hers pierced at 35 because my brother designed her a 1K diamond belly ring as an incentive. I have been kind of holding out for a some serious belly bling, but it’s kind of unlikely that I will actually ever get it. Let me know what you decide!
melissa (fitnessnyc) recently posted..Bar Method Raffle Winner
Reply
12
Shanna, Like Banana
June 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I think they can be pretty cute, but since it fell out, I would say, it’s a sign and move on.
Reply
13
SaraRM
June 14, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Agreed. That was my thought atleast when it happened to me…
Reply
14
Krissie J
June 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I still have mine in and I’m 28, although I’ve been debating on when I should remove it. I had my tongue pierced for a really long time and took that out. I nearly swallowed a ring after the ball came off and figured that was a sign to let it go. Hah.
Krissie J recently posted..I &lt3 NY
Reply
15
Amy
June 14, 2011 at 3:22 pm
26 isn’t old, but when I was 25 I had mine taken out because I didn’t feel like it was really “me” anymore. It represented my high school/college days and it was time to move on.
Amy recently posted..rereading tolkien- words of comfort
Reply
16
Midwestern Magnolia
June 14, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Completely agree! I don’t have one (never have), but I feel that it’s in a “private” enough place that if you want it, keep it. That said, if it’s not you anymore, don’t be afraid to move on. It’s your heart and soul that make you feel young, not some little piece of metal on your navel. : )
Midwestern Magnolia recently posted..An Introduction to the Three Loves of My Life
Reply
17
Samantha Angela @ Bikini Birthday
June 14, 2011 at 3:22 pm
I had an industrial through my left ear but it got infected so I took it out. I want to get it pierced again though.
Di

Freedom of Marriage. Should people be able to marry anyone they want? Can I have an opinion on the subject? In the world we live in these two questions are not allowed to both be answered yes. Somehow we want freedom and political correctness. I don't know how that works. In one regard I love this issu,e because it typically points out a limiting of freedom in a free society. However, political correctness also doesn't allow you to have an opinion on a subject. Which is just as absurd as the idea of not allowing people to be free.Freedom of Marriage is a big issue because it is basically one group of people telling another group of people what they can't do. This is America, we hate loss of freedom. The problem is most of the time we define freedom as "people are free to agree with me". That's on both sides of any political discussion. I always enjoy people that preach tolerance, but then are intolerant if you disagree with them. That's the way freedom works, sorry. It's messy. It's people not agreeing. My first inclination when I hear of any problem is to always ask, "Can we solve this with more freedom?" Typically the answer is Yes and then I can easily take a side of a problem. Now, some problems can't be solved with more freedom. Someone that has killed someone in cold blood should not be allowed to b free to possibly do that again.Marriage would seem to be an easy answer. What harm does it bring about to let two consenting adults do whatever they want? I've heard answers like, "Well, it harms the fabric of society?" or "The Bible is against it." These are pretty weak arguments. If we make everything that someone interprets in the Bible a law then we cease to be a ree country and we become a theocracy. Just like Iran, Syria or a number of other countries in the Middle East. When given the choice between a dictatorship and freedom, everyone will choose freedom unless they can be the dictator. If I can run a country exactly like I want then, "Yeah, I'm gonna like the laws, because they're my ideas." This country was founded on Christian ideals of freedom, not place a Bible in every person's hand and force them to live by it. The separation of church and state is a good thing. Too many Christians see it as bad. I don't need a government to promote my ideals, beliefs and way of life. I only need the freedom to promote it myself. Churches should see Separation of church and state as a way to keep the government out of churches. It should stop both sides from telling the other how to run their operations. Churches should be free to marry whoever they want as long as it lines up with their religious views. The state should grant freedom in as many things as possible. It's not the state's responsibility to decide what is good or bad, fair or unfair. It's the states responsibility to grant freedom in as many cases as possible.When I say, "Adults should be free to do whatever they choose", I usually get hit by the straw man argument. "Well, why don't we just allow people to marry their dogs? Why don't we just allow multiple marriages?" I don't think people are ready for my answer, "OK". They think that by throwing a crazy scenario against me that I will realize the error in my thinking. Do I think it's wierd that people would marry their dog? Yeah. Do I think it's strange that people would want to marry multiple people? Yewh. As an aside, anyone that would really want to be married to multiple people has never dealt with one;). Do I think it's strange that gay people want to get married? Yeah. Freedom works one way. I don't grant freedom to just what I believe in. That's not freedom. Freedom is not allowing people to believe exactly like I do. Freedom is asking, "What right do I have to control another person when their actions aren't affecting me?" If someone wants to marry their dog, what difference does it make to me?It's a slippery slope when we desire to control people. It's not just marriage. It's finances. It's personal choices. It's whatr kind of car they can drive. It's what kind of food they can eat. Unless we side on freedom we create a government that believes it is supposed to be the ultimate authority on what people should choose to do with their lives. We tell people how much money they need and how much we need to take from them. We tell people what cars they can drive based on what we like. We tell people what kind of food we can eat and make "bad" food illegal. Choose freedom. We lal love to talk about freedom, but we hate when people freely choose differently than we do.Now, on the other side, to have freedom you have to have opinions. People should be free, but they don't have to have your endorsement. If you believe that being gay is wrong. Then stand by that. Allowing people to be free does not mean you endorse their decision. The government shouldn't force churches to perform gay marriages. It is their freedom to marry only those that they believe matches with their belief system.This subject always perplexes me. Marriage. It is the sanctity of God. It is the foundation of society. Some Christians are short-sighted. Do I believe that Adam and Eve were created? Yes. Do I believe that marriage was created to be a union of one man and one woman? Yes. At the very least, any gay person can recognize that if everyone were gay there would cease to be an existence of humankind. So, gay can't be the norm, otherwise we have no ability to reproduce.Have we dealt with this from the beginning of humankind? Yes. Christians love to talk about David and how he was one of the pillars of the faith, but they don't want to address the fact that he had multiple wives, and he was a "man after God's own heary." Or, Solomon who had over 700 wives. Or any of the other references to people in the bible with multiple wives or committing sexual sins. God wasn't telling David, "You better only have one wife, or I won't bless you." Is there a marriage that God has set up? Yes, I believe so. Is it important for Christians to fight this battle and "make this a Christian nation"? No. I believe it's more important to live a life that draws people in. Allow people to be free. Allow them to be free to marry whoever they want. You don't have to agree with it. Get in your churches and explain why you think homosexuality is wrong. Also, explain why you think adultery is wrong. And, finally explain why you think divorce is wrong. But, until you want to start stoning people for adultery, don't tell me how you want to force people to live by the Bible.

When issues of how to make men love you are concerned, women need to realize that it takes more than just physical attributes or appearances to make men love you. You have to realize sooner or later for your own sake might I add, that it takes much more then looking like a bubbly princess. Looks will attract him yes but what do you have to offer to him in terms of character and personality? I'm sorry to be harsh but man in the real world are just not that attracted to the air head beauty picture that is often portrayed on TV or movies.You can easily attract a man with your looks but keeping his attentio is the important thing, you may be beautiful but remember you are not the only beautiful woman on earth. As soon a more beautiful woman comes along you will lose him if you can not stimulate, and keep his attention.Here are 4 key things to look at if you want to know how to make men love you.1. Be Presentable.You may look good yes but do so in a classy manner, looking good in a way that will attract men has little to do with your beauty. Being presentable means you look clean, proper and decent. Looking cheap and trashy will only attract men who want nothing else but to get in your pants, once they got that they are gone. Go for the look that will make him proud to show you off to his pals and eventually his parents.2. Be confident.Be comfortably in your own skin, love and appreciate yourself. If you show no love to your very own self then how do you expect others to love you. Confidence shows your strength of character and any man who has even the slightest of what he wants will appreciate that.3. Acknowledge Him.I believe this in one of the most crucila things in "how to make men love you". Man have egos and they love to have them stroked, this simple means that make him feel good about himself when ever you get an opportunity. Women want the answer to how to make men love you but if you are not willing to praise him when he has done well, compliment him and show appreciation and he will most likely not love you back.4. Support Him.If you are in a position to offer him advise, support him in his goals and undertakings, offer your shoulder when he needs to cry so to speak then go right ahead and do that. A good man will truly appreciate this and will become very loyal to you, making your how to make men love you efforts much more simplerWith all that being said, the best thing you can do for yourself as a woman is to be the best person that you can possible before asking how to make men love you. Build and balance every part of your life, do this for no one else but yourself and then others will recognize that too.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comment

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.